Quote:but its commen sense that your knee will slow you down if its broken or damaged. or a jab to the throat will cause the chin to tuck and the person to move away from it.

True..but the key thing here is IF it's broken or damaged. The jab to the throat is IF you hit the throat. The point of my 'one time at band camp story' was to express the difficulty actually involved in breaking the knee. I also gave the example of those early UFC's, something you neglected to mention. Can a knee be broken with a stomp/kick. Sure. Is is high percentage, well from what I have seen, both in personal experiance and video, no, it is not. The problem is, you can't train the technique to know how it's going to work. You are making an assumption that the way you have been shown will have the desired effect. Although it is indeed common sense that a damaged knee will slow someone down, it is not so easy to effect this damage on a moving, resisting opponent. This move was allowed in the UFC and no one, not once, was able to do it. The burden of proof is on those that say this type of technique will have the desired effect.

It's worth remembering that there are arts where a lot of these 'deadly' destructive techniques that can't be used in sparring are actually used all the time ... in sparring.

Kicks to the legs (including knees and shins) -- while wearing hard shoes -- are perfectly legal in savate. I've seen guys being pounded on the knees and shins [even in controlled contact 'assaut' matches] with little effect other than some bruising. Obviously, in most controlled contact matches people aren't really really trying to break your leg, but I've seen some fairly ill-tempered and pretty much full on contact to these joints and stomps to the shin are routine.

I'd not want to rely on these techniques as a definite 'stopper' because the percentage just doesn't seem that high.

Where did I say that other I am unable to think of other examples where dirty fighting didnt happen?

What *I* gather here, you're implying that people aren't going to be able to fight dirty unless they explicitly practice to.

And what I am saying is, it's not as difficult as you think. Beyond that, we go around and around, trying to get the other side to see our point. I've been able to see your's and just disagree with it. Is it possible for you to see mine?

Quote:I said it does happen, and I CAN think of other examples where it happens, but I can think of more where it does NOT happen.

It's not supposed to happen, is the whole point. What is so hard to understand about that?

Quote:

Anyhow, if dirty fighting was as instinctual as you make it out to be, people would react with it under intense stress more often despite rules which is what happens with instincts, you just do it. But they dont, they train to play by the rules, and that training tends to spill into street fighting in many cases where they fail to use tactics that could actually save them.

You're making a strawman argument, by discussing situations that you have no factual basis for. All you are doing is creating a hypothesis with no measurable proof. At least I have mentioned cases where it DID happen in the ring to support my point.

What you fail to see is that people understand the rules of competition, and what they are allowed and not allowed to do. It is just that simple.

People don't do foul tactics in the ring because they are trying to win under the rules and not be disqualified. Have you never seen someone disqualifed from an event because of repeated offenses???? I have.

Quote:

Panantukan (sp?) doesnt look too much like boxing, with all that hand trapping (which as far as I know you cant stand-just like the wing chun kind of trapping)

Have you ever trained panantukan? Videos like the one you provided look more like demonstrations than they do sparring. BIG difference there in my view. I don't do hand trapping that looks like Wing Chun in any way. Too risky.

Quote:

if this is what you mean anyway: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLv3uuis60s. They do utilize dirty tactics in training as well, like you said, along with "boxing" (or something like it I guess) doesnt that go against you whole point? Thanks for the counterexample bro.

Like I said, that is an example of a demo. These are shown to demonstrate all the potential variables. However when the gloves are on (or off) it comes back to fundamentals. Striking (boxing style) is emphasized because you have to have something to fall back on as I have been mentioning.

Quote:

By the way when I say boxing I mean the American, ring kind. Thats why I mentioned gloves so much before, I mean boxing as applied in the ring with gloves.

Boxing is boxing, with or without gloves - is the point that I've beent trying to make here for...well, years. When I talk about "delivery system", that's what I'm talking about, and I've said this a lot. Delivery system is the root core of the art and science of boxing. This has zero to do with rules, gloves, referees, rings, or anything else.

Jokgas wrote - Yes, and too dangerous to actually practice as well. If you can't practice, you can't develop skill. There's a lot of dangerous stuff in boxing as well, otherwise people wouldn't have died in the ring, no? There are also a lot of illegal things that boxers do in the ring as well, that take no practice whatsoever to do them. Why can they do this? Because they're functional fighters. Foul tactics require no skill. Skill comes from a functional delivery system, which comes from functional practice. And that functional practice knows no stylistic boundaries; karate, boxing, you name it, can all practice alive and functionally. As Krishnamurti said, "the truth is outside of all fixed forms". No form then, owns it. It's ALL a matter of how you train.

I agree totally with the last part of your statement. But we differ on the "Alot of dangerous stuff in boxing" I disagree because these dangerosu things are called fouls and unless a boxer trains to included fouls or illegal techniques he will fight the way he trains. Boxers to me can avoid getting hit in the head and deliever hits well, but are not prepared for what happens in real fights.

For example I'm helping a Kung-fu buddy start up his school there is a boxer there he uses boxing to defend, his hands up guard invists grab knees and close range grab the guard eye swepts and setup for throws and swepts. I find boxing a great base much to be desired too basic real world self defense art.

But admittly Boxing has a good delievery system when gloved and weapons are not used. Admittly boxing is a good base to grow from.

So we come full circle again to Karate imo have better ungloved strikes because of results and less self injuries.And boxers having better glove/taped strikes. I add to my defense in this debate even in your MMA training boxing only is 30% or 20% of your training the majority of your tecbniques can be found Karate, from clinching, head butts, elbows and knees to striking a downed oppoent and mounted strikes and stomps. I know most will say thats not legal in Karate either.

I say it depends on which Karate you are thinking of foam sparring or what Karate raelly IS. As one replier stated that Boxing use to be practiced bare fisted I bet they didn't hurt their hands as much then then. Again, You fight the way you Train.

Damn this is a good discussion!!! With great input on both sides and even people in middle.

Quote:About Darwinian evolution, you're partially right but evolution is not quite that narrow. New species might beat old ones in one environment, but in another environment the old ones may be better able to survive. I.E under different "rules".

Ehhhh........not really, Stormy. Evolution is dependant on the environment in question, so to say that something may do better in another environment is specious logic. Things "evolve" to best suit the environment they exist in. Darwin actually proved that evolution is quite "narrow" (specific).

_________________________"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

matt_mcg: You're right. I had totally forgotten about savate (shame on me). Indeed, they do utilize knee strikes/stomps regularly, and often the match continues. Plus, they are doing so with hard soled shoes.

Neko, you said:

Quote: So we come full circle again to Karate imo have better ungloved strikes because of results and less self injuries.

I haven't gone full circle, sorry man. I'll need to see some actual evidence that supports that karateka injure their hands less than a boxer in an ungloved setting. In training, I could see this being accurate, because a boxer spends more time sparring. But on the street? I don't personally buy it. The only potential reason why a boxer would be more likely, is because he is used to wearing gloves during sparring. So do most karateka who spar full contact. And the ones that don't have eliminated head shots, (because those are the ones where you're most likely to break your hand). So, again, I need to see some evidence of this, not just assumption.

Quote:And boxers having better glove/taped strikes. I add to my defense in this debate even in your MMA training boxing only is 30% or 20% of your training the majority of your tecbniques can be found Karate , from clinching, head butts, elbows and knees to striking a downed oppoent and mounted strikes and stomps. I know most will say thats not legal in Karate either.

Yes, they can be found in karate, but MMA fighters don't usually train karate (especially tradional karate) in order to gain these skill sets.

The reason why I myself haven't brought MMA into this debate was because we are talking specifically about striking, and who does it better, which implies who has the better delivry system to implement their training.

Nonetheless, regarding the skills you speak of here (clinch, takedown, mounting, stomping) I would say that although these might be found in the kata, the fact is they are rarely trained in a realistic way. Very few karate tournaments even allow throws, let along mounting to ground and pound your opponent. So, although this is interesting, I think it is another thread altogether. Again, though, the answer would be the same: having the technique is not enough, it must be trained with resistence in order to be used effectively. Until this is done, one doesn't 'have' (know) the technique at all, rather an abtract understanding of the possibilty of that technique.

--Chris

Edited by Ames (11/12/0812:55 PM)

_________________________
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."--Basho

I can look up articles that could verify boxing injuriees done training and street fighting but this is individual incidents. You could probably bring the same about Karate but I doubt it.

The thing is in personal experience while training with boxers and Karatakas, the Karate guys are less worried about hand injuries. I guest pounding hard things makawaris, concret blocks, boards, red bricks, glass bottles even, help teach how to hit hard things and a rules like soft on hard and hard on soft. Not jus hit it no matter what, bc that what we do. Anyway I don't have any evidence from experts in the different fields. All I have is personal experience interfacing with the two groups. Of course one of the reason boxer fear hand injuries is bc these are their main tools, whereas Karate has 6-7 others.

As for boxing sparring more then Karateka in some schools, to me boxers and wrestlers advantage is conditioing. Few Karate men train 15-20 rounds on the bag or in the ring. Nor run 10 miles more then twice a week. Of course this is not the advantage of a less serious boxer that doesn't a goal or trainer. Make shift boxers are ok at what they do.

I sse the discussion as more then just a delievery system but more what system is gear for what purpose. Given each their due respect. Boxing is a activty that stress standing defense using the upper body and foot movement & offense with the hands. Its goal is to strike the opponent more then he does you and ultimate KO is possible, this is the sweet science. Karate is a self defense that stress the use of the human body as a weapon. Its goal is to stop the oppoent as quickly as possible and ultimate goals is to damage and even the forbidden K word, not by accident.

I know words and intended purpose doesn't mean much unless or until you practice these INTENTS, intensly.

We talk about fighting dirty in boxing it's a unintend foul awaya from the referee sight but in Karate its the proper way to train and is incouraged.

As others mention this is just about opinon I really don't expect to change anybody mind or have mines changed. All I expected is what I got, many difference in opinon, experience and reason why.

I could bring up plenty of incidents on the Web to prove things one way or another but experience speaks louder then what others say I believe. Personally I respect what you guys say more then people I don't know.

I ask this for all that box, aren't you afriad of hand injuries? Jkogas among others stated it's a hindsight. Isn't it your main fear other then an ankle/knee injury after falling wrong after a knock down or out?

Yes, hand injuries happen. And yes, I'd rather they didn't. That's why I would target soft areas, if I could.

Quote:We talk about fighting dirty in boxing it's a unintend foul awaya from the referee sight but in Karate its the proper way to train and is incouraged.

Right. And that's the thing. This type of thing is encouraged in the kata and the co-operative drills that go along with it. This type of thing is certainly not encouraged in sparring (that I know of). I don't know of any karate org. where a kick to the groin, or an eyegouge is legal in sparring.

And that's the whole point isn't it? Those techniques which you, and others, suggest make karate better suited to street defence, are the very ones that are hypothitical and unmeasurable. They are the very ones that cannot be trained with resistence. Thus, the chance of application (in a real fight) is low percentage. They may be conceptually known, but they remain untested until the fight occurs. Same with the hard/soft thing. Sure, you can say that a karateka trains with this intent, but is it tested against a moving, resisting opponent, bare knuckle? No. Just like boxing (and any trainer will tell you to hit the soft areas with your knuckles when you are ungloved).

So, again, we arrive at the same point. What actually should be the priority is the restistent training which is the main focus of boxing.

Quote:Of course one of the reason boxer fear hand injuries is bc these are their main tools, whereas Karate has 6-7 others.

He has those only if he knows how to use them. He knows how to use them through sparring. This topic was one of generalities. We are talking about, from my understanding, tradional karate. Which, as I've shown, did not in the past have sparring as part of its training.

Now, if the topic was, 'What's better to train striking, boxing, or anshin karate', my response would have been diffirent.

But, speaking in generalities, the methodology of tradional karate is, I believe flawed (at least in respect to creating the best possible fighter). I think boxing is closer to the goal.

-Chris

_________________________
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."--Basho

Quote:About Darwinian evolution, you're partially right but evolution is not quite that narrow. New species might beat old ones in one environment, but in another environment the old ones may be better able to survive. I.E under different "rules".

Ehhhh........not really, Stormy. Evolution is dependant on the environment in question, so to say that something may do better in another environment is specious logic. Things "evolve" to best suit the environment they exist in. Darwin actually proved that evolution is quite "narrow" (specific).

Well I kind of see what you mean so look at it this way, say a species evolves and is better able to survive then the older form, the older form starts dying out of course. The new form grows and survives, being fitter.

Now the environment could change in a way that makes the newer species less fit, and the older species will start to grow again and the other one will start to die out. Or less likely but possible, another species could come in that is able to trounce the newer one but not the older one.

Look at human vs ape evolution, we got smarter but a lot weaker physically. Are we better able to survive? Well the first forms of humans werent at all better able to survive, they barely got by and then eventually we got smart enough that we became better able to survive than most anything else.

An evolutionary adaption isnt necessairly good either, it may not effect the species and their ability to survive or may negatively impact their ability to survive, it's a somewhat blind process. They may evolve and not really be any "fitter" just different, and just happen to survive and outlast other forms for other reasons.

One other point, an older species doesnt necessairly have to completely die out, often they are mostly wiped out but survive in small numbers and might later make a resurgence in the cases I mentioned. So again I say you're partially right. Within an environment a species generally adapts and is then fitter although in another environment the older species may be fitter, but things within an environment can change making an older species the fitter one again. I'd say that this is why we have so many similar forms of animals rather than a few vastly different ones in our world. Thats purely speculation though.

_________________________
Member of DaJoGen MMA school under Dave Hagen and Team Chaos fight team under Denver Mangiyatan and Chris Toquero, ran out of Zanshin Martial Arts in Salem Oregon: http://www.zanshinarts.org/Home.aspx,